Keywords: antitrust, Arbitration, AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, American Express Merchants, Litigation, Second Circuit

The Supreme Court has just granted certiorari in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133.   Earlier today, my colleague Andy Pincus previewed the issue presented to the Court, which is (in a nutshell) whether plaintiffs may avoid their agreements to arbitrate on an individual rather than class-wide basis by contending that they cannot "effectively vindicate" their federal claims without the use of the class device.

Since AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the majority of courts have enforced arbitration agreements that waive class actions.   But a distinct minority of courts, relying on the Second Circuit's decision in In re American Express Merchants' Litigation (the decision under review by the Supreme Court), have refused to enforce such agreements.  According to the Second Circuit (and courts adopting its reasoning), a plaintiff who can show that it would be "economically irrational" to pursue his or her federal claims without resort to class actions may avoid the Federal Arbitration Act's command that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms.   Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, the ability of the plaintiffs' bar to evade Concepcion may be sharply limited.

We'll have more to say about American Express in coming days, but it's clear that this the most important post-Concepcion arbitration case to come before the Supreme Court.  One interesting note:  Because Justice Sotomayor was on the original Second Circuit panel to hear the first iteration of the American Express appeal, she has recused herself from this case.  Because a 4-4 tie results in affirmance, however, American Express will still need to persuade five Justices.

Edited by Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin S. Ranlett

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2012. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.